113 policy, overall, 63% of survey participants said that they can smell coworkers’ fragrances or scented products, on average, at least once per week, as shown in Table 4.1. Fragrance Sensitive participants reported that they smelled fragrances emitting from fellow
employees at least once per week at a rate that is 15 percentage points higher than that of Not Fragrance Sensitive employees. Given the way that the policy is implemented, this does not necessarily reveal the extent of non-compliance, but it does speak to variations or limits to the degree to which employees are scent-free. It also is not an assessment of the degree to which discernable scents are problematic.
Table 4.1: Number of days per week that employees smell coworkers’ scented products in their offices
Not Fragrance
Sensitive Fragrance Sensitive Total
Zero days 43% 28% 37%
1 or more days 57% 72% 63%
For those who are bothered by scents in the workplace, the policy has made a difference in two ways. First, it has reduced the overall amount of scents worn by coworkers, in particular, perfumes, colognes, and body sprays. Second, it has made it easier to make requests for coworkers to change their practices because there is a policy to back up the request and people can ask their managers to ask coworkers to make the changes. Many Fragrance Sensitive employees appreciate the reduction in the amount of scents that they smell in the office since the fragrance policy was passed.
114 In the past, I had co-workers who drenched themselves in cologne or
perfume that triggered headaches and nausea for me. With the implementation of the policy I've only had that problem when non- employee guests come to visit. (Fragrance Sensitive)
While the policy is making a difference and has improved the work lives of many people in the organization, there are limits to implementation. Of the participants who identified as Fragrance Sensitive in the survey, one-fifth (22%) have not had any negative reactions as a result of coworkers’ scented products while 32% have said that a coworker triggered a Fragrance Sensitive response in the month prior to taking the survey. In open- ended responses, many of the people who are Fragrance Sensitive said that coworkers in their departments generally comply with the policy. Study participants also shared a few examples of coworkers (and supervisors) who, after being confronted about their
fragrance use, either completely refused to make changes or only made limited changes in their practices. Discussions of fragrance breaches more often refer to employees in other units, visitors to the organization, and lingering scents in elevators and hallways.
There are both tangible changes and limits to implementation via an individual health status argument. The changes that many participants made in decreasing their use of fragranced products show that the individualized rationale for the policy has been effective in encouraging many people to change their practices. Approximately one-third of participants have reduced their use of fragrances and the overall rate of participants who wear perfume or cologne to work at least once per week decreased by about half. The one-third of Fragrance Sensitive participants who mentioned having reactions to
115 colleagues’ fragrances highlights limits to the diffusion of the policy. Changes and limits to change are explored in the next two findings sections.
Individualization and Support for Change
The policy was implemented out of concern for how fragrances may impact employees with fragrance sensitivities in the workplace. The underlying rationale and accompanying individual health message has been effective in encouraging many
employees to change their scent practices at work in part because the allergy explanation for negative fragrance reactions provides an understandable rationale that falls within a common medical disorder. This section includes an assessment of the ways that an individualized health argument has encouraged employees to abide by the fragrance policy. Among the underlying rationales that employees use to support adherence to the policy, and in particular, why they have made changes in light of the policy, two flow from an individualized health status understanding of fragrance impacts. The first is modifying practices due to the existence of known Fragrance Sensitive coworkers in an office, particularly those with obvious or severe reactions to fragranced products. The other is a “good neighbor” orientation under which participants maintain their already low use of scented products or make changes due to the potential that they may encounter colleagues with sensitivities to fragrances including those who may not have spoken up or may not have identified themselves as Fragrance Sensitive.
116 Presence of a Fragrance Sensitive coworker in an office provides evidence to support changes
When there are employees who are sensitive to scents in a department, the likelihood that employees are expected to change their scent habits and that they have made changes to their practices is higher. Both interview and survey data show that reductions in the use of scented products happen to higher degrees in offices where there are known Fragrance Sensitive coworkers. For example, among survey respondents, shown in Table 4.2, half (48%) who reported that they have a Fragrance Sensitive coworker in their office reported at least one product change due to the fragrance policy compared with a quarter (25%) of participants in offices where there are no Fragrance Sensitive coworkers. There is a 30 percentage point difference in the rate of wearing perfume or cologne to work at least one day per week among those who have Fragrance Sensitive coworkers and those who do not.
Table 4.2: Changes to products and frequency of wearing perfume or cologne in offices with and without Fragrance Sensitive respondents
Fragrance Sensitive
coworkers in one’s office Changed at least one product due to policy Wears perfume or cologne to work
Yes 48% 13%
Unsure 29% 22%
No 25% 43%
There are some characteristics of Fragrance Sensitive participants that make other employees more sympathetic in general toward their requests. Fragrance Sensitive
117 encourages employees to change their practices. Clear connections between the presence of scented products that many people in an office would deem obvious or strong and negative reactions in a Fragrance Sensitive coworker lend credibility to fragrance claims. Requests for change that originate from coworkers who do not complain about a lot of other things and who are well-liked and integrated into their departments are also met with more empathy than requests from employees who seem to complain a lot and who have other issues with their coworkers.
The presence of a Fragrance Sensitive coworker who exhibits visible signs of distress due to fragrance exposures seems to provide the clearest form of evidence that participants should make changes to their practices. People view the inconvenience in changing their practices to accommodate those who experience such obvious distress as worth it because they have seen reductions in their coworkers’ reactions as a result. Employees who make changes for obviously affected Fragrance Sensitive coworkers also think of it as being the right thing to do. There is an acceptance in the face of severe reactions that is not there to the same extent in the case of less severe reactions, a theme that is explored later in the findings section.
Some employees and supervisors had experiences with disputes over fragrance use prior to the implementation of the fragrance policy. Having a rationale to explain why employees are making fragrance requests has reduced some friction because people understand that the fragrances are causing issues, not just someone trying to be difficult. For example, one supervisor credits the fragrance-free policy with reducing the amount of scents in the office and reducing friction among employees.
118 The policy, in my opinion, decreased the friction between employees
because it was, you know, the allergies. Some people thought that it was just somebody trying to get attention, and in some instances that might have been true, but after the policy, you could either adhere to it or be disciplined for it, so it kind of took away all of the fighting between people …. Once more awareness built up, people began to really understand it and they could understand that it could irritate a person's throat and really make it difficult for them. People came in line. So, I believe the policy is effective even though I love the smell of perfume. (Not Fragrance Sensitive)
The health rationale, interpreted as allergies, provides justification and support for requests for employees to make changes to their practices.
In addition to reducing the amount and prevalence of scents that coworkers emit in the workplace, many participants said that the fragrance policy has made it easier to speak to coworkers in the instances where scent issues arise. Fragrance Sensitive
participants noted that their colleagues have reduced their use of scented products and, in general, are more responsive to requests for changes to their practices. For example:
I'm very glad my workplace has a policy. I notice strong scents less and feel more confident speaking up if someone wears a strong scent. (Fragrance Sensitive)
I have had good experiences with talking to co-workers who use scented cleaning products that trigger headaches and other allergic reactions (sneezing, coughing, etc.), and my boss has my back. (Fragrance Sensitive)
The policy legitimizes impacts on the individual health of workers so that employees with fragrance sensitivities can speak up and others respond. In general, the increase in awareness of fragrance as an issue that impacts individual health has made it easier for employees to have conversations with their coworkers and for their coworkers to respond.
119 “Good neighbor” orientation
A main reason for abiding by the policy in the absence of known fragrance sensitive coworkers in an office is that participants do not want to affect the health of their fellow coworkers who might be Fragrance Sensitive. Borrowing language from a couple of participants, this “good neighbor” or community orientation is undergirded by the rationale that fragrance negatively affects certain individuals. Participants with this orientation accept fragrance sensitivity as a health issue that deserves to be
accommodated in the workplace, a concept that was described in Chapter 3. They think that it is good to follow the policy because they may encounter people who are affected by fragrances and they do not want their practices to negatively impact those employees. Several Not Fragrance Sensitive employees with this orientation have encountered Fragrance Sensitive people outside of the workplace and have had to make
accommodations for family and friends, so their understanding of fragrance sensitivity comes from experiences outside of work. Having a good neighbor orientation does not mean that employees have made changes to their practices: some already used unscented or low-fragranced options prior to the implementation of the fragrance policy. Those who follow this orientation do not need to know whether there are actually Fragrance
Sensitive employees in their offices in order to make changes. As we will see in the next section, employees with a different disposition require a higher burden of proof and specific examples to support making changes to their fragrance practices.
120
Individualization and Challenges to Change
While an individual health rationale has led to changes in the workplace, it also supports limitations and boundaries to changing scent practices in a number of different ways, which are organized into the following three sections: social and physical aspects of scent perception, modifications for specific individuals, and power dynamics and questions oflegitimacy. The analysis focuses on the kinds of evidence that employees use as they interpret the need for and negotiate potential changes to their practices in light of an individualized health frame. These sections highlight the assessments that underlie limits to policy implementation. Assessments tap into evidence generated through participants’ experiences with fragrances and Fragrance Sensitive individuals.
Interactions with coworkers who experience fragrance sensitivity as well as silence on the part of Fragrance Sensitive coworkers contribute to assessments that employees make in determining whether and the degree to which they should be fragrance-free at work. Skepticism in engaging with claims of harm associated with individual exposures to fragrances contributes to assessments that limit changes to practices. Processes of denial of outcome severity and denial of self-involvement (Opotow & Weiss, 2000) help to relegate fragrance issues into irrelevance (Zerubavel, 2006) for a segment of employees.
Social and physical aspects of scent perception
There are social and physical aspects of engaging with scents that influence the degree to which individuals perceive scents and, in turn, assess scents as being potentially problematic and in need of modification or change. Levels of scent perception are
121 influenced by both social factors such as which kinds of scents are normalized or
acceptable in given contexts, as described in Chapter 2, and physical factors such as one’s ability to discern various scents. Limits to scent perception present major and overarching challenges to implementation. Scents that may be very obvious and cause issues for some people may not even be perceived by others. When individuals do not realize that their scented products are discernable by others, they have little to no incentive to make changes to their practices.
Median survey results show that 10% of the personal care and laundry products used by Fragrance Sensitive employees and 50% of products used by Not Fragrance Sensitive employees are scented. Several Not Fragrance Sensitive participants exhibited a lack of awareness that scents from fragranced products might continue to be emitted and therefore perceptible long after they have been used. People often forget about their own scents because their sense of smell stops paying attention – that is, wearers stop being able to smell scents on their own bodies- soon after they use a product. This phenomenon has been referred to as “odor fatigue” (Dalton, 2000). A number of employees, particularly those who enjoy using scented products, expressed sentiments consistent with odor fatigue. Many talked about how the scents from their own products were not perceptible to themselves once they arrived at work. Others noted how their scents faded throughout the day. This type of inability to perceive scents after a given time is a key part of how inattention and denial (Zerubavel, 2006) limit awareness of potential scent breaches. This means that employees may not realize that their products continue to emit scents all day long because they stop being able to perceive them soon after they use them.
122 In terms of scent perception, another main reason for continuing to use fragranced products is the assessment that scents from one’s products could not possibly be heavy or strong enough to cause reactions or issues for people. This connects back to employees’ understandings of moral breaches (Low, 2006) of scent practices and the desire to distance themselves from such breaches. For example, one Not Fragrance Sensitive employee refuses to be completely fragrance-free because he understands the policy as banning “overbearing” fragrances and his products do not fall under that category. Another, who uses a scented laundry detergent that I could smell during the interview, justifies the use of fragranced products by saying that they are not bothering others, that his products give off a “very light smell” that is “nowhere near perfume”. This sentiment was echoed by others who contend that their products only have a “light” scent, that “there’s like no scent to it, really”, or that the scent dissipates by the time the person goes to work. Participants making these assessments based on scent perceptions assert that their fragranced products are not emitting problematic scents into the workplace.
Some personal care products or laundry products can emit more scents and stronger scents than perfume or cologne. Products that are scented but have other functions such as hand and body lotions, hair care, and laundry products have been the sources of disputes among coworkers. Given that fewer than 10% of all survey
participants reported changing each type of product listed in the previous sentence, it means that such products have only been problematized to a limited extent in this workplace. Table 4.3 shows the proportion of respondents who think that each category of product should be included in the fragrance policy. The gap in terms of the proportion of Not Fragrance Sensitive and Fragrance Sensitive employees who think these products
123 should be included in the policy ranges from 15 to 38 percentage points for each
category. For example, 77% of Fragrance Sensitive participants think that “body lotions and sprays” should be covered under the fragrance policy while only 39% of Not
Fragrance Sensitive participants agree.
Table 4.3: Proportions of employees who think that each of the following should be included under the fragrance policy
Not Fragrance
Sensitive
Fragrance
Sensitive Total
Perfume, cologne or aftershave 61% 94% 74%
Body lotions or sprays 39% 77% 53%
Air fresheners 38% 75% 52%
Cleaning products used at your desk 19% 52% 31%
Hair care products 18% 45% 28%
Shower gels/body washes 10% 34% 18%
Deodorants 10% 28% 17%
Laundry detergent, fabric softener, and/or dryer
sheets 9% 31% 17%
Hand sanitizer 9% 24% 14%
Hand soaps 8% 25% 14%
None of the Above 29% 2% 19%
The significant differences between the rates that Fragrance Sensitive and Not Fragrance Sensitive participants think these kinds of products should be restricted under the fragrance policy are related to differences in perceptions of scents, in particular, understandings of which products are emitted into the workplace and whether they have the potential to cause problems for Fragrance Sensitive individuals. This data speaks to
124 how people perceive scents and shows that scents that cause concern for some may remain hidden for others. Of note is that the proportion of Fragrance Sensitive
participants is below 50% for many of the personal care and laundry product categories for which fragrances play a secondary role in product formulations, which suggest that scents from these kinds of products might also not be problematic for a significant portion of those who identify as Fragrance Sensitive.
Often, people are unaware that their products are giving off a discernable scent at work until someone points it out to them. There were several examples of Not Fragrance Sensitive participants having been told that they “smell nice” as a way for supervisors or other employees to let them know that they were emitting a fragrance. For example:
One of our past directors - I had gone into his office one time and he said, “oh, my, you smell nice.” And I’m like - I couldn't quite figure that out. I don’t know whether, maybe I had put a little too much fabric softener in my wash cycle…. I still use my fabric softener, but I don't use very much, just enough to keep the static electricity down. But, yeah, it's very
interesting to stop and think about how many things are actually fragranced. (Not Fragrance Sensitive )
It took the participant some time to figure out where the scent was coming from because she had stopped wearing perfume to work by that time. These kinds of encounters raised